Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, I'm not sure what you mean by that. But -- as wikipedia stated, many many years ago (according to scientific musings and speculations), apparently in that "bottleneck" of humankind a long time ago, there were relatively few humans alive. Says the article, "It is supported by some genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago." Regardless of what you believe, yes, I was wondering how many can come from a few. Quite a few, apparently.
(Notice the phrase, "supported by some genetic evidence..." )
See? There's your evidence. (Supported by some genetic evidence.) (Citations in the article.) Anyway, doesn't matter -- many can come from just a few...
Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

Again, you do not understand what you are reading. Nor do you understand what I posted. All you can do is quote bits and bobs. And even 2,000 adults is still more than two orders of magnitude above what the Ark myth claimed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The NY Times had an article about population long, long ago. Like more than a million years ago.

"From the composition of just two human genomes, geneticists have computed the size of the human population 1.2 million years ago from which everyone in the world is descended.
They put the number at 18,500 people, but this refers only to breeding individuals, the “effective” population. The actual population would have been about three times as large, or 55,500."

So according to geneticists and the NY Times, 1.2 million years ago (lol), the number of people was 18,500, only for "breeding" individuals. LOL again. I guess those other persons remained celibate, lol. Or hybrids? Or unbreeding? Or unbreedable. And, of course, there are caveats and disagreements among scientists. But 18,000 or so more than a million years ago.

The New York Times? Are you trying to be silky?

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, yeah, why? I'm not worried about that anyway. And, as someone else mentioned, black holes are the least of my worries. I think I'll worry more about having someone steal a kidney.

You should try to understand the sciences if you want to argue against reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

And we can see the results of floods. There is no evidence for the Flood of Noah.

Doesn't matter about the Flood right now. The NY Times had an article about population long, long ago, and it said about the same thing as the article in wikipedia.

"From the composition of just two human genomes, geneticists have computed the size of the human population 1.2 million years ago from which everyone in the world is descended.
They put the number at 18,500 people, but this refers only to breeding individuals, the “effective” population. The actual population would have been about three times as large, or 55,500."

So according to geneticists and the NY Times, 1.2 million years ago (lol), the number of people was 18,500, only for "breeding" individuals. LOL again. I guess those persons remained celibate, lol. Or hybrids? Or unbreeding? Or unbreedable.

 

[YoursTrue]

The New York Times? Are you trying to be silky?

Well, the point is clear. The population expanded from, um, several thousand they say, to, um, a few billion now. That's what they say. You don't believe it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn't matter about the Flood right now. The NY Times had an article about population long, long ago, and it said about the same thing as the article in wikipedia.

"From the composition of just two human genomes, geneticists have computed the size of the human population 1.2 million years ago from which everyone in the world is descended.
They put the number at 18,500 people, but this refers only to breeding individuals, the “effective” population. The actual population would have been about three times as large, or 55,500."

So according to geneticists and the NY Times, 1.2 million years ago (lol), the number of people was 18,500, only for "breeding" individuals. LOL again. I guess those persons remained celibate, lol. Or hybrids? Or unbreeding? Or unbreedable.

Why do you go to these detours that only prove you to be wrong and refuse to learn from them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, the point is clear. The population expanded from, um, several thousand they say, to, um, a few billion now. That's what they say. You don't believe it?

You misunderstood the article. The population dropped to a figure in the thousands. The biblical myth has the population dropping to three breeding pairs. Again, if that were true then you would have to worry about waking up in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney. You believe in a children's bedtime story that can be refuted with the most ludicrous examples. Sadly they all seem to be beyond you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The word make was the point.

A point seemingly designed to move the goalposts and simultanously dodge the point that was actually made.............

If something is made, it must be compelled to do so since making or bringing something to a different form are both actions.

So, are you really completely oblivious concerning the natural processes of physics and chemistry?

Now this action has to come from either in the thing made, or outside of the thing made. Being made from the inside is impossible since a thing can't compel itself to do something, this it must be an external forced.

It's called physics and chemistry.

Randomness breeds chaos so for something ordered to exist, the made thing must be forced to be made ordered. Since nature is an unintelligent, undirected force... It's hard to maintain that it could order anything.

So you're just going to completely ignore that the forces of nature (the nuclear forces, electro magnetism, gravity) work on matter and thereby makes stuff happen?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your actually making my point for me. Order never comes from chaos without information added. Why I'm the world would nature and the universe be different? To say laws or constants come from randomness goes against everything we observe in life. The laws of thermodynamics state this.

The laws of thermodynamics state nothing at all concerning the origins of laws or physical constants... what the heck are you talking about...

You can try to argue around it but there's no free lunch

It seems your case doesn't even have lunch - free or otherwise.

If you have examples to the contrary I'd be open to hearing them. And I'm sad I have to say this so often... But I am NOT bring sarcastic when I say that.

Contrary to what, exactly?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I guess my next question would be, how did the laws originate. I assume since they are physical laws they have a beginning. If those laws don't come into existence randomly, you need a mechanism that forms them. If I'm correct in that assessment, what is their origin outside of randomness.

My first question would be, why are you even adding "outside of randomness"? "randomness" is a concept, not a physical thing or process that results in stuff.

Secondly, the laws of the universe are really just the conditions that exist within the universe.
So they came into being together with the universe.

How, you ask? Well, we don't know. Physicists are trying to find out. That's why we build stuff like the LHC etc. You won't find the answer in a 2000-year old book, you know....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Since the earth's topography has changed over a period of time, it is certainly possible that the outside environment (magnetic forces and the like) can change.

If that's the case, then you can assume that a "day" in Genesis can refer to practically any period of time, not a literal 24-hour period.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your actually making my point for me. Order never comes from chaos without information added. Why I'm the world would nature and the universe be different? To say laws or constants come from randomness goes against everything we observe in life. The laws of thermodynamics state this. You can try to argue around it but there's no free lunch. If you have examples to the contrary I'd be open to hearing them. And I'm sad I have to say this so often... But I am NOT bring sarcastic when I say that.

Ignoring the obvious misapplication of the laws of thermodynamics - what do you think pregnancy and childbirth is?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So according to geneticists and the NY Times, 1.2 million years ago (lol), the number of people was 18,500, only for "breeding" individuals. LOL again. I guess those persons remained celibate, lol. Or hybrids? Or unbreeding? Or unbreedable.

You understand that not every individual born in a population lives to breeding age, or successfully reproduces, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's go back to one classic argument people make. You said the physical laws are coexistent with matter, energy, space, and time. Please explain gravity. Thanks.

How adorable, that you think the biggest problem in physics for the past decades is going to be solved and explained to you in a forum post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't need a citation from you for this. Prove it. Yes, you can see the results of floods. And allow me to say that upon research I see there have been discovered underwater cities.

So?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you think these things just happened? In concert, together at the same time? Just like that? By themselves? Voila.
What anyway does "gravity is the curvature of spacetime" mean? Time was allowed for humans (I doubt chimpanzees, by the way, keep calendars or think much about these things...) by God. HE doesn't need time for himself. He is beyond time. He allows the concept of time for humans to function. Again -- ants, chimpanzees, bats, fireflies, none of them keep calendars. Or write history books. Humans are different.

So how do you get from "humans are different" to "therefor god"?

ps: you are aware that every single species is unique, right? It's that uniqueness that kind of makes them a seperate species... If there were no difference between chimps and gorilla's, we wouldn't have different words for them

 

[Polymath257]

And you think these things just happened? In concert, together at the same time? Just like that? By themselves? Voila.

No, saying they 'just happened' implies a process. They just *are*, for all of space and time.

What anyway does "gravity is the curvature of spacetime" mean? Time was allowed for humans (I doubt chimpanzees, by the way, keep calendars or think much about these things...) by God. HE doesn't need time for himself. He is beyond time. He allows the concept of time for humans to function. Again -- ants, chimpanzees, bats, fireflies, none of them keep calendars. Or write history books. Humans are different.

Time existed long before humans. It is a fundamental aspect of our universe. And causality is tightly tied with the notion of time. Your ramble about God is rather beside the point. Calendars are how *we* measure time, but if there is change, there is time. The earth spins, stars emit energy, atoms interact: all these are indications of time.

But one aspect here is that you are thinking of time as a separate thing. It is part of the universe. Just like latitude and longitude are part of the geometry of the Earth, space and time are part of the geometry of our universe. And just like the Earth is curved, spacetime can be curved. And that curvature produces the effects we call gravity.

But more to the point, if we consider the universe to be *all* of space and *all* of time, as a single thing, then it just simply exists. It didn't 'come from' anywhere because it *is* everything. It isn't caused because all causality is *within* it. It didn't come into being because it *is* all that is and 'to come into being' implies time, which is part of it.

 

[Polymath257]

Is the universe expanding or is it not expanding?

I answered that. The time slices are larger when we take later time slices. That is what it *means* to expand.

The Earth expands as we move up from the south pole until we get to the equator, then contracts again until the north pole.

 

[Polymath257]

So according to geneticists and the NY Times, 1.2 million years ago (lol), the number of people was 18,500, only for "breeding" individuals. LOL again. I guess those persons remained celibate, lol. Or hybrids? Or unbreeding? Or unbreedable.

In most animal species, the majority of the population never breeds successfully. Modern humans are a rarity in that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Regardless of how much time went by in previous ages, and layering, I was thinking -- when there is a large (or small) flood of any sort, things move, shall we say. Soil moves, objects move, and on and on.

Um.....okay.